Supreme Court — Dismissal — No debatable constitutional question involved — Appropriation of property — Easement for widening limited access highway — Compensation — Damage to residue — Cost of constructing service road, includible, when — Land adjacent to city and suitable for allotment — Service road necessary for access — Evidence — Testimony as to rental values not admissible — Charge on benefit to residue erroneous, when — Jury instructed to consider incidental benefit if blended with incidental injury — No evidence to prove any benefit to residue — Inviolability of private property — Section 19, Article 1, Constitution
Per Curiam.
It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.
Appeal dismissed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, MATTHIAS and HART, JJ., concur.